Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist Research Articles

Bullying in prisons in Argentina: a study of personality, mental health and attitudes

ABSTRACT Bullying in prisons is a construct with important psychosocial and physical consequences. The research examines the nature and extent of bullying in four prisons in Argentina, exploring demographics, personality, mental health, and attitudes towards bullying. Seven hundred and eighteen adult prisoners took part (667 men, 48 women, and 3 transgender), completing the DIPC-SCALED-r version (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist), and measures of personality, mental health, and bullying attitudes. Dark Triad traits, attitudes supportive of prison bullying/disapproving of victims, and prison experience were considered likely to predict perpetration, with depression predicting victimisation. Results demonstrated that bullying was predicted by higher levels of Dark Triad personality, specific attitudes supportive of bullying, younger age, and certain offence types (i.e. homicide/attempted homicide and robbery). Prison experience was not a predictor. Victimisation was a significant predictor of depression. Implications of these findings are outlined, with suggestions for future research made, including proposals for a reformulation of the MMBSS (Multifactor Model of Bullying in Secure Services).

The role of beliefs and trait aggression in prison bullying among young offenders

This study aimed to explore the characteristics of those involved in bullying, including trait aggression, beliefs, interpretation of potential threat and responses to aggression. Three hundred and thirteen young adult male offenders completed three measures; the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist, the Aggression Questionnaire, and the Threat Appraisal of Behaviour measure. Pure bullies and bully-victims were predicted to have higher trait aggression scores, and to be more likely to endorse beliefs supportive of aggression than other groups. Bully-victims were predicted to have higher levels of trait hostility and higher levels of fear than pure bullies. The results demonstrated that both bully groups had higher trait aggression scores, with bully-victims having higher scores on the hostility subscale than pure bullies or those not involved. Bully-victims viewed bullying as more of a threat and were more fearful of it than pure bullies and they were also more likely to endorse both aggressive and avoidant coping responses whereas pure bullies were more likely to endorse aggressive responding. Findings highlight differences between the two bully groups and offers an outline of the underpinning causes of bullying for each group.

Investigating Social Dominance in a Prison Population

This study using a prison sample to explore Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), socially dominant inmate behaviour, index offence, age and length of time served in secure environments. A sample of 397 adult male prisoners completed the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist‐ Scaled (prisoner behaviour towards other inmates and staff) and the Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Scale. It was predicted that prisoners would report higher SDO than non‐incarcerated populations and that among inmates those with approach orientated index offences would be higher in SDO than those whose offenses were more remote. It was also predicted that SDO would be related to younger age, higher lifetime rates of incarceration, more negative behaviour towards other inmates and staff, and more resource focused behaviour. The results broadly supported predictions, and possible implications for practice and directions for future research are discussed.

Fear of bullying among prisoners: association with experience, psychological distress and respondent sex

This study explores the association between fear of bullying and psychological distress. Participants were 293 adult prisoners, including men (n = 169) and women (n = 124), split into groups of ‘pure bullies’ (ie. solely reporting perpetration), ‘bully/victims’ (reporting perpetration and being victimised), ‘pure victims’ (reporting being victimised) and those ‘not‐involved’. All completed the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist ‐ Revised (DIPC‐R), a measure of psychological health (General Health Questionnaire: GHQ‐28) and the Fear of Bullying Scale (FBS). The FBS was piloted on a sample of adult male prisoners (n = 69) prior to the main study. It was hypothesised that experience of victimisation would associate with higher levels of fear; that bully/victims would present with higher levels of fear than pure bullies (perpetrators); that fear would be associated with increased levels of psychological distress; and, finally, that women would report higher levels of fear than men. Pure victims reported higher levels of fear than pure bullies and those not‐involved, with bully/victims reporting increased levels of fear in comparison to those not‐involved. These findings did not, however, hold across sex, with women overall reporting higher levels of fear than men. Structural equation models indicated no direct relationship between experiencing victimisation and psychological distress, but rather an indirect relationship through fear of victimisation. The results are discussed with reference to the association between victimisation and psychological distress and the importance of this finding to the wider research field.

Impulsivity, attribution and prison bullying: Bully-category and perpetrator–victim mutuality

The current study explores bullying behaviours among adult male prisoners, examining its relationship with aggression attribution and impulsivity. Employed are two separate methods of analysis to determine how this may influence results. Participants were 102 prisoners. All completed a revised version of the Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist (DIPC-R), the Barratt Impulsivity Scale: Version II (BIS-12) and the Expressive Aggression Scale (EXPAGG). Analysis included categorical analysis with prisoners placed into one of four groups (pure bully, pure victim, bully/victim and not-involved), and factorial analysis where perpetration and victimisation were assessed as continuous variables and evidence of interactions explored. It was predicted that perpetration would be associated with higher instrumental attributions and higher impulsivity than non-perpetration. It was predicted that a factorial analysis would demonstrate no interactions between perpetration and victimisation across aggression variables, questioning the utility of a distinct ‘bully–victim’ group. Bullies were found to have higher instrumental attribution scores than non-bullies, with no differences for expressive attribution. Victims were more impulsive than non-victims with evidence that perpetration moderated this relationship. A categorical analysis demonstrated that bully/victims were more impulsive, at least in relation to pure bullies. Results suggested that it was the combined effect of indirect and direct aggression which promoted differences between victims and bullies in relation to attribution and impulsivity. Results are discussed with reference to previous research concerning prison bullying, with directions for future research focused on exploration of perpetrator–victim mutuality using a range of variables and distinct methods of analysis.

The effects of the introduction of the no‐smoking policy at HMYOI Warren Hill on bullying behaviour

The current research explores the prevalence of bullying behaviour at HMYOI Warren Hill and the Carlford Unit. The introduction of the no-smoking policy at the establishment was also explored in relation to its effect on bullying behaviour given that tobacco has historically been the main item that young people have been bullied for. The Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist--Revised (DIPC-R) and a questionnaire designed to identify the effect of the introduction of the no-smoking policy on bullying behaviour were used within this study to answer the following questions: what is the prevalence of bullying behaviour at Warren Hill and the Carlford Unit, and do young people at Warren Hill and the Carlford Unit think that the rate and nature of bullying has been affected by the introduction of the no-smoking policy? One hundred and fifteen young people took part in the study. At Warren Hill, Bully/Victims were the most prevalent type identified and this was significantly greater than the number of young people identified as Pure Victims or Not Involved. On the Carlford Unit, Not Involved was the most prevalent type identified, and this finding provides limited support for the theories of bullying behaviour identified within the present study. The study found that the rate of bullying decreased following the introduction of the no-smoking policy at Warren Hill. The findings from this study are being used in the development of a new Violence Reduction Policy at HMYOI Warren Hill.

Bullying and social and emotional loneliness in a sample of adult male prisoners

The present study explored social and emotional loneliness, and victimisation among a sample of adult male prisoners. 241 prisoners took part, completing a behavioural measure of behaviours indicative of bullying (DIPC-R: Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist, Ireland, J.L. 2003. The Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist — Revised. Psychology Department, University of Central Lancashire). and a measure of social and emotional loneliness (SELSA: Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults, DiTommaso, E. & Spinner, B. (1993). The development and initial validation of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults (SELSA). Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 127–134.). Differences between the groups involved in bullying (i.e. pure bullies, pure victims, bully/victims and those not involved) were noted, with victim groups (pure victims and bully/victims) presenting with higher levels of social loneliness than those not-involved. Emotional loneliness was not a distinguishing characteristic for membership to the pure victim or bully/victim group, and instead was found to be associated with the type and amount of victimisation reported: victims who reported multiple types of victimisation presented with higher levels of emotional (family) loneliness than victims reporting just one type of victimisation. Increased victimisation was also associated with increased levels of social and emotional loneliness, most notably with regards to indirect victimisation. The results are discussed with reference to the environment in which the victimisation is taking place, and we outline a potential application of life events and added stress models in understanding social maladjustment (loneliness) among prisoners.

Intra‐group aggression among prisoners: bullying intensity and exploration of victim‐perpetrator mutuality

A new multiple indicator method of assessing bullying behaviour is employed (Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist - Scaled version [DIPC-SCALED]) with 605 adult prisoners (487 men and 118 women). The study explores if the DIPC-SCALED is a reliable method comprising of identifiable aggression factors; if prisoners can be classified into groups based on behavioural frequency; and if there is evidence for mutual victim/perpetrator groups. The DIPC-SCALED proved reliable, comprising of a number of aggression factors. Prisoners could be classified into groups based on behavioural frequency with one-fifth classified into an "intense" perpetrator and/or victim group. Evidence for mutual perpetrator/victims was found. Results are discussed with regards to the method used and the value in accounting for behavioural frequency in group classification.

The impact of bullying and coping strategies on the psychological distress of young offenders

This study investigated the involvement in bullying, the psychological distress, and the coping strategies of 99 males in an English young offenders institution. The Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC; Ireland, 1998), the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995) and the 48-item Coping Styles Questionnaire (CSQ; Roger et al., 1993) were administered. Over 60% of prisoners were involved in bullying (as a victim or bully), as indicated by responses on the DIPC. Emotional and avoidance coping were significantly related to psychological distress. Bully/victims were significantly more depressed than prisoners not involved in bullying, and being a bully/victim was a significant predictor of higher stress scores. Significant correlations were observed between all psychological distress measures and the number of bullying behaviours experienced by prisoners. These findings are discussed in relation to their implications for prisoner care and avenues for future research are proposed.

The Relationship Between Moral Reasoning, Provictim Attitudes, and Interpersonal Aggression Among Imprisoned Young Offenders

This study examined the relationship between moral reasoning, provictim attitudes, and interpersonal aggression among imprisoned young offenders. The participants were 60 imprisoned male young offenders from a young offender institution or remand centre. Using the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist, the offenders were categorised as one of four groups: perpetrator, victim, perpetrator-victim, or not involved. Participants in the four groups were compared on measures of provictim attitudes and sociomoral reasoning. The results showed that the majority of the participants were involved in victimising behaviours, with 43.3% falling into the perpetrator-victim category. Victims had significantly more empathic attitudes toward victims than did those in the perpetrator-victim group. No significant differences were found among the four groups on the sociomoral reasoning measure, nor was there a significant correlation between sociomoral reasoning and provictim attitudes. The results are discussed in terms of previous research and their implications for practice.

Behaviours indicative of bullying among young and juvenile male offenders: a study of perpetrator and victim characteristics

AbstractThe actual characteristics of young offenders involved in behaviours indicative of “bullying others” or of “being bullied” have received only limited research attention. No research to date has focused on prison‐based behavioural characteristics. The present study aimed to explore these characteristics in a sample of young and juvenile male offenders. Subsidiary aims included examining the nature and extent of behaviours indicative of bullying, and the extent to which a developmental model of aggression can be applied to a prison sample. One hundred and thirty‐three offenders (102 young and 31 juvenile) completed a behavioural measure of behaviours indicative of bullying (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist). Juvenile offenders were more likely to report “being bullied” physically than young offenders and were less likely to report “bullying others” overall, directly and psychologically/verbally. Young offenders were more likely to be classified as “bully/victims” than juveniles. Prison‐based behavioural characteristics were more predictive of membership to the perpetrator and/or victim groups than personal descriptive characteristics such as age, sentence length, offence type, ethnic origin and total amount of time spent in prison. Bully/victims were predicted by increased negative and drug‐related behaviour and pure victims by decreased positive behaviour. There were no significant predictors for pure bullies. Bully/victims were found to react more aggressively to their victimization than pure victims. The present findings suggest that there are reliable predictors of involvement as a perpetrator and/or victim among young and juvenile samples. The findings are compared to previous research and discussed with regard to the environment in which bullying behaviour is being assessed. Aggr. Behav. 32:172–180, 2006. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Psychological health and bullying behavior among adolescent prisoners: A study of young and juvenile offenders

Purpose To explore psychological health and behaviors indicative of direct, indirect and coercive bullying in a sample of adolescent offenders. Methods One hundred two juvenile (aged 15–17 years) and 100 young (aged 18–21 years) offenders took part. All completed the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) and a revised version of the Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist (DIPC-R). Offenders were classified into one of four categories: “pure bullies” (solely reporting behaviors indicative of bullying others); “bully/victims” (reporting behaviors indicative of bullying others and of being bullied); “pure victims” (only reporting “victim” behaviors); “not-involved” (not reporting any “bully” or “victim” behaviors). The data was analyzed using Kuder-Richardson-20, LOGIT Analysis, ANOVA, MANOVA, and correlations. Results Juveniles reported perpetrating and experiencing more bullying behavior than young offenders. Pure victims and bully/victims reported more symptoms associated with somatic concerns, severe depression, anxiety and insomnia in comparison with pure bullies and those not involved. Bully/victims reported more somatic symptoms and pure victims more social dysfunction. The psychological health profiles of pure bullies and those not involved were broadly similar. Indirect, direct and coercive victimization all correlated positively with psychological health. Conclusions The current study provides evidence for an association between self-reported psychological health and direct, indirect and coercive bullying behavior among an incarcerated adolescent sample. It also highlights the importance of viewing the “bully/victim” group as a victim group.

Attachment, emotional loneliness, and bullying behaviour: A study of adult and young offenders

AbstractThis research addresses the question of whether or not offenders who bully others and/or are victimised themselves can be distinguished by their attachment styles and the level of emotional loneliness that they report. Adult and young male offenders (n = 220) were required to complete a self‐report behavioural checklist (DIPC: Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist: Ireland, 1999a) that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Offenders were also required to complete a measure of attachment, namely the Three Attachment Style Measure [Hazan and Shaver, 1987] exploring secure, avoidant and anxious/ambivalent styles, and a measure of emotional loneliness, namely the revised UCLA Loneliness scale [Russell, Peplaw and Cutrona, 1980]. Young offenders were more likely than adult offenders to report behaviours indicative of ‘bullying others’ and of ‘being bullied.’ With regards to attachment style and bullying behaviour, significant differences were restricted to avoidant attachment; bully/victims reported higher avoidant scores than the other bully‐categories, with pure bullies and those not‐involved reporting lower avoidant scores. Finally, when considering emotional loneliness and bullying behaviour, bully/victims reported higher scores on emotional loneliness than the other bully‐categories, with the not‐involved group reporting significantly lower scores. Aggr. Behav. 30:298–312, 2004. © 2004 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Relationship between bullying and scores on the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire among imprisoned male offenders

This study investigated the relationship between bullying and aggression among imprisoned male adult offenders. The participants were 70 imprisoned male offenders, who were classified using the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC) as one of four ‘bully’ groups: pure bully, pure victim, bully/victim, or not involved. Participants also completed the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (AQ), a measure of aggression and hostility. The majority of the prisoners reported behaviors indicative of bullying, with 42.9 percent classified in the bully/victim group and 12.9 percent as pure bullies. 15.7 percent of participants were classified as pure victims, while 28.6 percent did not report any involvement in bullying. Bully/victims scored higher than participants who were not involved in bullying on the Hostility scale and Total score of the AQ. A number of correlations were found between the AQ scores and number of bully behaviors perpetrated. These suggested there is an overlap between the constructs measured by the AQ and type of bullying behaviors perpetrated. The number of bullying behaviors experienced was only correlated with the Hostility scale. The results are discussed in terms of previous research and their implications for theory and practice. Aggress. Behav. 31:1–11, 2005. © 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

How do offenders define bullying? A study of adult, young and juvenile male offenders

Purpose. The main aim of the present study was to explore how offenders define bullying and how this relates to school‐based definitions, with a subsidiary aim of exploring age differences.Methods. The sample was selected from two separate prisons in the UK housing male offenders (one adult prison and one housing both young and juvenile offenders) and consisted of 322 offenders (127 adults, 95 young offenders and 100 juveniles). Offenders were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess their perceptions of bullying, including an assessment of what types of behaviours made up bullying based on the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC©: Ireland, 1999).Results. Differences were found between school‐based definitions and those applied by offenders. In particular, offenders reported that a single act of aggression could be considered bullying and that there was not always an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim. Victims were often seen to provoke bullies. Bullies were not always respected by their peers and one‐quarter of offenders felt that the term ‘bullying’ was a ‘childish’ one. Offenders reported a range of discrete aggressive behaviours, both direct and indirect in nature, which could be considered to be bullying. Indirect behaviours were reported as bullying less frequently than direct behaviours.Conclusions. The study demonstrated how school‐based definitions of bullying do not readily apply to offenders and the findings are discussed in relation to the specific population and environment under study.

How does assertiveness relate to bullying behaviour among prisoners?

Purpose. The purpose of the study was to address how assertiveness relates to bullying behaviour among adult prisoners.Methods. The sample was selected from six separate prison establishments (three male, three female) and consisted of 502 adult prisoners (285 men, 217 women). Prisoners were placed into one of four bully‐categories (‘pure bullies’, ‘bully/victims’, ‘pure victims’ or ‘not involved’) on the basis of a self‐report behavioural checklist (DIPC: Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist). They also completed the Rathus Assertiveness Schedule (RAS).Results. Assertiveness among prisoners was made up of three components: social assertiveness, argumentative and combativeness, and a willingness to converse with others. Men reported significantly higher overall assertiveness and social assertiveness scores than women. Pure victims reported lower total assertiveness scores than the other categories and there was a trend for pure bullies to report higher total assertiveness scores than the other bully‐categories. Bully/victims scored significantly higher on the argumentative and combative scale in comparison to the overall mean and there was a trend in the same direction for pure bullies. There was a trend for pure victims to score lower on this scale and those not involved in bullying reported significantly lower scores on this scale. Those not involved also scored significantly higher on social assertiveness and there was a trend for both bully/victims and pure victims to score lower on this component.Conclusions. The present research showed how certain components of assertiveness relate to bullying behaviour among prisoners. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research, and possible implications for intervention are outlined.

Social self‐esteem and self‐reported bullying behaviour among adult prisoners

AbstractThis paper addresses how social self‐esteem relates to self‐reported bullying behaviour among adult prisoners. It explores both level of self‐esteem and participants’ certainty of their self‐esteem. A total of 502 adult prisoners (285 men and 217 women) completed a self‐report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist) [Ireland JL. 1999. Aggres Behav 25:162–178] that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Prisoners also completed a questionnaire that measured social self‐esteem (Texas Social Behaviour Inventory) [Helmreich R, Stapp J. 1974. Bull Psychonomic Soc 4:473–475]. Four categories of prisoners were compared: bullies, victims, those who reported both bullying others and being victimised themselves (bully/victims), and those who were not involved in bullying behaviour. There were no significant differences among bully categories in total self‐esteem scores. Men reported significantly higher levels of self‐esteem than did women. There were no significant sex or bully category differences in certainty of self‐esteem. Self‐esteem was found to include a number of individual components that differed between the sexes. The findings are discussed, and directions for future research are suggested. Aggr. Behav. 28:184–197, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The perceived consequences of responding to bullying with aggression: A study of male and female adult prisoners

AbstractThis research addresses whether prisoners who bully others and/or are victimised themselves can be distinguished by the perceptions that they have of the consequences about using aggression as a solution to being bullied. Male and female adult prisoners (n = 406) were required to complete a self‐report behavioural checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist [DIPC]) that addressed the level of bullying behaviour at their present institution. Prisoners were also required to complete a questionnaire (Bullying Social Problem Solving Questionnaire [BSPSQ]) that provided them with five different bullying situations and asked them what would be the consequences if they were to respond aggressively to each. Four categories of prisoners were examined: pure bullies, pure victims, those who reported both bullying others and being victimised themselves (bully/victims), and those not involved in bullying/victimisation. Pure bullies reported significantly more positive than negative consequences of aggression compared with the overall category mean in response to theft‐related bullying. Bully/victims reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared with the overall category mean in response to indirect and indirect‐physical bullying. Those not involved reported significantly more negative than positive consequences compared with the overall category mean in response to all scenarios except one involving indirect‐physical bullying. Males reported significantly more positive than negative consequences compared with females for all types of bullying. Aggr. Behav. 28:257–272, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Distinguishing the perpetrators and victims of bullying behaviour in a prison environment: A study of male and female adult prisoners

Purpose. The main aim of this study was to explore prison‐based behavioural characteristics and personal/descriptive characteristics of the different groups involved in bullying behaviour, with a subsidiary aim of exploring gender differences regarding these characteristics. Methods. The sample was selected from four separate prison establishments (two male and two female) and consisted of 406 adult prisoners (196 females and 210 males). Prisoners were placed into one of four groups (‘pure bullies’, ‘bully/ victims’, ‘pure victims’ or ‘not involved’) on the basis of a self‐report behaviour checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner behaviour Checklist (DIPC); Ireland, 1998). Results. Prison‐based behaviours shown by prisoners appeared to be more predictive of group membership than the personal/descriptive characteristics such as age, sentence length, offence and institutional history addressed in the present study. The victim groups (i.e. pure victims and bully/victims) showed the most drug‐related behaviour and negative behaviour towards staff. Gender differences were found with negative behaviour more predictive of group membership for female bully/victims, whereas for male bully/victims, drug‐related and proactive/positive behaviours were more predictive of group membership. Conclusions. The present research showed how the personal/descriptive characteristics that adult prisoners brought with them to the prison environment appeared to be less important in predicting group membership than the behaviours that they displayed within the prison. The importance of these findings for bullying intervention programmes and directions for future research are discussed.

Provictim attitudes and empathy in relation to bullying behaviour among prisoners

Purpose. The main aims of the study were to investigate attitudes towards the victims of bullying, and to explore the role of empathy in bullying others. It was predicted that those who reported ‘bullying others’ would report less positive attitudes towards victims and lower levels of empathy than those who did not engage in bullying behaviour. It was predicted that differences would be found in attitudes and empathy between sex. No predictions were made with regard to adults vs. young offenders.Method. The sample was selected from five separate prison establishments and consisted of 98 young offenders (21 women and 77 men) and 211 adult offenders (53 women and 158 men). Prisoners were categorized as ‘bullies’, ‘bully/victims’, ‘pure victims’ or ‘not involved’ on the basis of a self‐report behaviour checklist (Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist (DIPC)). A modified version of the Rigby & Slee (1991) Provictim Scale and the Davis (1980) Interpersonal Reactivity Index were used to measure attitudes and empathy respectively.Results. The attitudes of the ‘bully’ and the ‘bully/victim’ group were found to reflect their behaviour in that both were less ‘provictim’ than those not involved in bullying. Women were significantly more provictim than men, and adults were significantly more provictim than young offenders. Women scored significantly higher on some components of empathy than men. The implications of these findings for bullying intervention programmes are discussed.